HERE is an injunction in our sacred codethe Code of Manu-which runs as follows:

Tell the truth, say what is agreeable But do not tell an unpleasant truth.

"If

This is what we should follow under ordinary circumstances. But under special circumstances, we should rather follow the moral maxim: you want to injure an enemy, flatter him; on the other hand, if you want to benefit a friend, expose his defects." So please judge me according to this maxim. If I be wrong in my views-and man is liable to err- the error should not be attributed to any motive but friendly.

My subject is :-"How can Englard know more about India ?" But before I take the up hour, I must explain the why, and I must show how little England comparatively knows about India.

THE NECESSITY OF THE KNOWLEDGE.

To put my whole proposition in a pointed way, let me say :-"India and England are necessary to each other for the British Empire and hence the knowledge of each other is imperative to either."

The many comparisons that I shall draw in the course of this lecture* in favour of Germany, may give you the impression that I am a pro-German. Nothing of the kind, and I must tell you straight away at the very outset, that by religion I am a universalist, socially I am a humanist, in international politics, I am for a Federation of the Powers and in Indian politics, I am for a thorough amalgamation of Great Britain and India-an identification of the political and commercial interests of the two great countries based on indissoluble relations. So I lay stress on my statement: India and England are necessary to each other.

This object cannot be accomplished, if England does not know India and England's true interest in India can only spring from a better knowledge. It is on the face of it obvious that you cannot consolidate your interests in any country unless you know the people; their traditions, their genius, their characteristics and their aspirations

* Delivered at the University College, London.

THE EXTENT OF IGNORANCE.

England's ignorance of India is colossal. One in a thousand knows whether India is inhabited by savages or civilized people One in tens of thousands can tell a Mohammedan from a Hindu. Very few of the members of the Parliament-the Supreme Legislative Body of the Empire-know where the United Provinces are situated and fewer still can say why Benares or Lucknow is famous.

It were well if this ignorance was an utter void or a merely passive element. Unfortunately it is sometimes broken by wrong or partial information which infuses into it an element of distrust, prejudicial regard or hatred. To give you some instances:

was

You are often told what barbarous atrocities the Sepoys perpetrated during the Mutiny. But you are not told what generous protection was extended to the British fugitives by all classes of the gentry and what valuable assistance rendered by the majority of the Gurkhas, Sikhs, and the Mahratta and Rajput Chiefs, who are still fighting side by side with the British troops -the Rajput Chiefs, whose chivalry and laws of honour date back to pre-historic times and whose ancestors followed a civilized form of warfare which the modern Western nations have not yet approached.

In the epic battle of Kurukshetra, in which all the important princes of India took part, fighting began after morning prayers and stopped at sunset. At night the combatants visited each other's camps and enjoyed reciprocal hospitality. The commander-in-chief of one army, Bhishma, preferred death to using arms against a woman who was fighting as a prince in disguise.

You are sometimes told that an Indian is by nature sly and unfaithful, but you are seldom told that the honour, life and property of the English ladies in India, is not guarded by British soldiers, but lie in the hands of Indian watchmen who generally draw a pay of five or six rupees a month (i.e., about 2 shillings a week).

The newspapers do not fail to report to you the anarchic attempts against British life in India, but they hardly tell you the splendid services

The ordinary British public,

done by the Indian officers and police to trace and defeat anarchy. The self-sacrifice of the Indian sepoys to protect English life both in India and in all parts of hostile Asia, has no parallel in the history of the world.

You are sometimes told that the Indians look down upon the English because they do not admit them into their temples, their family, and they refuse to dine with the English. But it is not always explained that they do the same thing with their own people, without regard to rank or wealth.

You have heard it said that the women of India are not properly treated and kept very much in the background. But you seldom know what affection we have for daughters, what dowries we pay at their weddings, how we, as a rule, love our wives and study their happiness and how we worship our mothers, who really command us and rule all our family affairs. All our social concerns-weddings, funerals, banquets, etc., are controlled and conducted by our elderly ladies. You may also know that our much-condemned purdah is enforced by the ladies themselves. No woman of the Indian gentry is allowed to work for her livelihood and social law demands the

protection of every woman. Thousands of years before 1882, when the Married Women's Property Act was passed in England, our married women could legally possess separate property and a widow could claim maintenance from her husband's relations.

The influence that women in India exerted on men's life can be best estimated by a reference to the epics. One particular legend you will find at page 120 of "Metrical Translations from Sanskrit writers by J. Muir." The heroine of this legend, who exhorts her son to "awake to deed of high emprize", is described to be learned and statesmanlike.

You are told that the Indians marry many wives, but you are not told that one in a thousand, who has the means to maintain more than one wife, indulges in bigamy. The percentage is so small, that the last census does not trouble about the statistics.

There was about two years ago a pompous announcement about staging at Earl's Court an Indian Show, the object of which was to glorify the fact that the Christians arrived in India to prevent human sacrifices. The organisers did not mean to supplement the show with another scene to illustrate the habits of millions of Indian people who abstain from all kinds of slaughter

and many of whom actually live the life outlined by Christ's Mount Sermon, so rarely put to practice in Christendom. Long before Christ, an Indian Emperor (Asoka) sought to make humanity a state religion. You hear of depressed castes or classes in India, but perhaps do not hear that slavery was never recognised by the ancient Indian laws. This is supported by the Greek account to the effect that there was no slavery nor untruthfulness in India.

I can go on giving you further instances of the partial truths that you are told, but I hope these are enough to illustrate that the one-sided stories go a great length towards prejudicing English mind against India and impairing the regard which is otherwise due to our country.

CLASSICAL TRADITIONS.

You cannot know India, unless you study her classical traditions. Although she possesses no regular history of old times, she is a living museum of her own antiquities. The primitive habits of both your and our common ancestors are still preserved in her, although she has passed through many phases of transition.

One who studies the religious and classical lore of India, knows and understands the Indian people better than those who have studied them superficially. Dr. Barnett and Dr. Thomas, who have never been in India, know more about India than many of the retired I.C.S's. Very few of the Indian Civilians take up the study of Indian classical traditions in early years, and they generally come back from India with a skin-deep knowledge of Indian arts, literature and social characteristics. Their education to qualify them for Indian service is so defective that they can never go into these with a true spirit in after years. Even our own Indian students who are trained in England for the Indian Civil Service suffer from the same lack of proper education. The other day an Indian student of Oxford asked me: "How many wives has your Mahárajáh? Does the chap pull his subjects by the nose or has he got any laws?" To tell you the truth I was shocked. He is a Hindu claiming Rajput origin and yet he does not know that the most conservative Hindu Ruler, called "The Sun of the Hindus," the Maharana of Udaipur who traces unbroken lineage from the greatest ruling dynasty of the epic age has got only one wife and has got a Council called Mahendra Sabha to administer justice strictly according to fixed laws. I am glad that the student failed in his Civil Service Examination, but what astounds me is this, that the

candidates for the Indian Civil Service Examination need not have any previous knowledge of India at all. Is there not a bitter irony in the fact that with the object of teaching and educating India, you send out Professors who do not know India at all? They may be good scholars of Latin and Greek, but that does not help them in being acquainted with the traditions, social habits, mode of living and mode of thinking of the Indian students in their true light. England has been directly associated with India for a long period, yet her literature of classical India is poorer than that of Germany. Consult the British Museum Catalogue and you will find that the bulk of German literature on the soul and spirit of real India by far outweighs that of English. Only a few years ago, the greatest Sanskrit scholar in England was Max Muller, a German ; and the greatest Sanskrit scholar in India was Dr. Thibaut, a German. Even America is going ahead of England in her study of classical India and the real spirit of India of to-day. Does it redound credit on ourselves and England? To prepare my thesis for the M. A. examination, I had to do some research work, and my Professor, Dr. Barnett for whom I have the greatest admiration, had to give me notes from the German works of Jolly, for there was no book in English for the required information. I had to read Jolly's "Tagore Law Lectures" prescribed by the University on the subject of History of Hindu Law. When I pointed out to my examiner, Prof. Neill who is happily here in our midst, how confounding and illogical some of the Lectures were, he confessed that the University chose the book because there was no other good book on the subject. What does this prove? It proves a sad lack of interest on the part of England in the study of Indian classical literature, which has got a living influence in India. William Jones, Colebrook, Cowell, Monier Williams, Prof. MacDonnell, Sir Charles Lyall, Dr. Barnett, Dr. Thomas and Prof. Rapson, Dr. Arnold and others have done and are doing splendid work. But is the list of scholars adequate? Are their works studied by an appreciable number of Englishmen? Besides, are our English professors working independently of the many theories, prejudicial to India's ancient glory, forged in the German workshop?

POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE.

It grieves me to discover that many members of Parliament, which exercises the supreme sovereign power over the whole Empire, betray Jamentable ignorance of Indian politics. I have

heard some say that India loves to be governed despotically. Evidently they do not know

that:

1. India could never be governed despotically in the sense of the sovereign's "word being law." The greatest Emperor of ancient India could not form a complete state in its proper sense, or his state was wanting in legislative power. He could not make laws. The whole of India was under one law, principally embodied in the Code of Manu, subject to modifications made by local customs and juristic interpretations.

(a) The King could not be an autocrat, for he was always checked by a council composed of the wisest Brahmans.

(b) There was prefect village autonomy which only contributed to the revenue and paid a nominal allegiance to the Sovereign, even in the days of the Mahomedan Rulers.

2. The dynasties for the truly despotic monarchs were swiftly swept away. The Indians are as sensitive to unbounded despotisn or tyranny as any other nation and they never failed to avail themselves of an opportunity to overthrow purely despotic rule.

a

3. The proper type of despotic rule that counts towards stability is afforded by Akbar's reign. But the difference between Akbar's administration and the British, is brought out by the following conspicuous facts:

(a) Akbar lived in India and became an Indian.

(b) His Commander-in-Chief was a Hindu, His Financial Minister was a Hindu.

(c) Although a Mahomedan by religion, he treated wise Hindu and Mohammedan priests with equal respect. He had Hindu courtiers as well as Mahomedan. He took a deep interest in the classical literature of India and was surrounded by Pandits as well as by Ulemah.

(d) He held constant durbars at his capital which his vassals attended in regular rotation. The Feudatory Chiefs were given tázim (i.e. return courtesy).

(Let me say in connection with this that our Emperor's position is the most anomalous. You call him a King and we call him an Emperor. The Chapter of Precedence does not make any room for the Indian Feudatory Sovereigns. The position of these sovereigns, paying homage to His Majesty at a Buckingham Palace Levée, is not at all defined.)

4. The most prominent feature of a despotic rule was the capacity to mete out swift punish

ments and swift rewards. The former were

actuated by local information and the latter neutralised the effects of injustice, if any.

The semi-constitutional system of Government in India cannot encompass these ends. The long drawn processes of litigation ushered in by the British Government and the powers of the Monarch, tied hand and foot by Constitution, can hardly be compatible with the ideals of a despotic Government. So it is useless to talk of despotic methods being employed now in India, when you cannot sacrifice your constitution and make the Emperor a despot in its true sense. The Indian idea of a sovereign is that he can make and unmake not laws, but the fortunes of men or communities. In this respect a petty chief of India exercises more power than our Emperor. The grand effect of His Imperial Majesty's last visit to India was to a great extent undone by some short sighted politicians at home, who vigorously opposed the measures proclaimed at the Delhi Durbar. They say that they attacked the Ministers, but they forgot that we knew that the Decrees had gone forth from His Imperial Majesty and, when once so, they were above the breath of a question.

To make this awful muddle between a constitution and despotism is the outcome of a regrettable ignorance.

a

Lord Morley, who is no doubt a great master of Indian politics, said in the course of a speech that self-government for India was like fur coat for a tropical country. The great statesman forgot that India has got high hill-stations where fur coats are a suitable wear even in the summer. Besides, the English education in India is creating an atinosphere cold enough for a fur coat. The constitutional revolutions in Japan, Turkey, Persia and China should preclude such political prejudices as place a permanent natural disqualification on an Oriental nation.

At this critical juncture when India is looking forward to a preliminary form of Self-Government being on the tip-toe of expectation, the House of Lords flung away the Bill to create a Council for the Government of the United Provinces. No doubt there are some veteran Indian politicians in the House of Lords, but they forget that India of to-day is not the India over which they governed. She is moving fast-very fast since Lord Curzon's administration; and political opinions, formed fifteen years ago, are now out of date. These opinions must be revised every year to keep in touch with the waves of current politics in India.

The British public often hear praises of our splendid I. C. S. I am glad they are now hearing something of our Sepoys. But the most important person, who constitutes the vital part of Indian administration-the Babu-they hear the least of. He sometimes comes to you in caricature, as a comic figure in stories. You read of the fearful' Babu in Kipling's "Kim" and many other novels. Yet it is he who makes the administration of the handful of English Civilians in India possible. It is he who makes up for their want of knowledge of Indian affairs and Indian languages. It is he who virtually works the whole machinery of Indian Government. He is nothing but an educated or semi-educated Indian gentleman, who has not yet received the recognition he deserves. Politically he is the most important person, but he is the least known to you and the least studied.

A Bengali Babu is often branded as disloyal and seditious. But it is known to very few here that the person who unearthed the bomb factory in Calcutta and thus saved a terrible disaster to the English population down there, was a Bengali Babu, who, along with many Bengali gentlemen, subsequently lost his life in the suppression of anarchy, and that the most genuine demonstration of loyalty accorded to His Imperial Majesty on his last visit to India came from the Bengali Babu.

ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE.

India is full of resources which, if fully utilized, would drive away all the poverty of India and England. Her mountains are full of rich minerals and you can use the waterfalls and the tremendous amount of heat from sunshine for power. Yet while you can find hundreds of pleasuretrips and shooting excursions on these mountains, you will look in vain for companies of scientists or prospectors making serious efforts to do something to increase the wealth of India.

We have a copper-mine in our State (Jhalawar). Will you care to know who was first eager to work this mine? A German Company, Smidt & Co.

We were looking for a steel safe at the Army and Navy Stores, Bombay. The safes in store there were not of the best quality which we wanted. The manager, wishing to oblige us, sent us to a German firm where we got exactly the thing we required.

I can multiply examples. But I hope these are enough to show what little England has done to apply science and industry to Indian resources. We have got manganese and iron-ores, but we

could not profitably work the mines nor manufacture steel works because of German competition. England has not only omitted to send us scientific aid in force, but has also unaccountably ignored India's claim to the protection of her infant industries and trades.

You send out from Oxford and Cambridge gra luates with ostentatious Oxon and Cantab titles to teach the Indian students the dainty tales of Tanglewood stories or Jungle Book, Shakespe's "Midsummer Night's Dream", "Tempest", Milton's "Comus", etc., etc. But how many experts have you sent to India to give the Indian masses practical education to earn their livelihood? You know India is mainly an agricultural country. Does "Midsummer Night's Dream" or Jungle Book" help the Indian students in learning agriculture, horticulture, farming and dairy? England must know that we do not want Greek or Latin-scholars, but agricultural, industrial and art experts-not one or two, but in numerical force and with financial strength.

Raw materials come from India to be manufactured in England and are then sent back for Indian consumption. The English financiers must know that by applying their finance and skil- · ful knowledge in India, they would enrich both the countries. They must probe public feeling in India on this subject. This one-sided business cannot go on for long and if they keep on "grabbing" too much they will hold nothing fast.

BUREAU OF INFORMATION.

Through a reliable person, I was informed that Germany has got a bureau of information about India. In England if you want to know anything about India, you have to go to the India Office. Some days ago, I badly wanted to know about rainfall in India and went to the India Office Library for the latest monsoon reports by cablegram.

There was nothing there to answer my inquiry. In order to know how many Indian students reside in Great Britain for education, I went to the office of the Educational Adviser, attached to the India Office. I received the information that the information of the offices itself on the subject was very limited.

RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE,

The solid rock of stability on which the British Government is founded. in India, is its noninterference with the religious and social institutions of the country. But ignorance of religious and social customs sometimes leads to unintentional unpleasantness. Let me give you a simple example we were entertaining about five hundred

convalescent Indian soldiers at a base-hospital near New Milton. There was an English conjurer with us, who after producing some cigarettes through "magic", threw among the Sikhs seated in front of the improvised stage. Immediately a commotion occurred and the Sikhs rose to leave with an angry scowl on their faces. I had to interpose and explain to the Sikhs that the offence was not intentional; and when the gentleman conjurer learnt from me that it is against the religion of the Sikhs to touch tobacco, he apologisel through me-and that settled the matter.

You perhaps know that the Sepoy Mutiny was due to an ignorance of this character and ended in a terrible calamity which I wish could be effaced from history.

LINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE.

In bestowing praises, such as on the Indian Civilian, the Indian Sepoy and the Indian Babu, we should not leave out another class of people who deserve special mention:-The khansamas (butlers) and chaprasis (peons). To them belongs the credit of understanding an Englishman's Hindustani. With a few honourable exceptions the English officers in India speak Indian dialects with accents and grammar which are known only to the above-mentioned wonderful people.

It may be argued that the English have done pretty well without learning the Indian dialects properly, and they can safely do without the mastery of them. Yes, they are quite safe so long as they have the Babus on their sides as interpreters. The English officer is something like a semi-divine being in India to be approached by the masses only through the intermediary priest, the Babu. But as there is a demand for more direct relationship and more active sympathy and co-operation, there must be a reformation in the official Church of India and the priest must drop. The greatest source of a widespread discontentment in India is the despotic police, and the police cannot be efficiently kept in hand unless the officers address directly to the masses and receive first-hand information.

THE SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE.

Perhaps I need not dwell long on the subject: "How can England know more about India," if I have been able to explain to you the necessity of doing so. For necessity is the mother of invention. If you really feel that England ought to know more about India, the means of knowledge will not be far to seek. Where there is a will there is a way. The proper channels of knowledge of